All 17 troops believed killed in Afghan crash- U.S.

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050629/ts_nm/afghan_casualties_dc

All 17 troops believed killed in Afghan crash- U.S.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - All 17 U.S. troops aboard an American helicopter are now believed to have died when the aircraft crashed on Tuesday after being hit by ground fire in Afghanistan, a U.S. official said on Wednesday.

"We presume that all were lost," the official, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters when asked if all of those aboard -- including elite U.S. Seals Special Operations troops -- had apparently been killed in the crash.

The official repeated statements by the U.S. military that the CH-47 Chinook helicopter was believed to have been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in mountainous terrain near the border with Pakistan.

The twin-rotor Chinook crashed in remote and mountainous Kunar province on Tuesday afternoon while bringing troops to reinforce soldiers on the ground carrying out an anti-al Qaeda operation, according to the U.S. military in Afghanistan.

<</SNIP>>

[johncoby2]

1. *UCK! I thought we WON in Afghanistan!!!

I dont get it. Why isnt this damn war over? Or is it?

Geez. While we are in a quagmire in Iraq, our soldiers are still getting killed in Afghanistan.

Damn bush.

[Oversea Visitor]

20. Do you guys ever know what you are doing

The Talibans are freedom fighters that boot our the Russia.
Al Qeada attack US not the Taliban.
You are now at war with these freedom fighters
They fought off the Russian thank to help from Al Qeada who was funded by CIA to fund and train Taliban fighters

[jobycom]

42. The Taliban sprang up after the Russians left

They were a faction that sprang up out of the chaos and civil war of Afghanistan in the 90s, after the Soviets had fled. They had a strict interpretation of the Islamic law, and at a time of complete chaos, many people preferred their unyielding justice to the chaos of before. They had conquered most of Iraq by 98.

They were allied to Bin Laden and al-Queda from very early on, and some experts believe that UBL made them into an efficient force that could conquer Afghanistan. When UBL fled the Sudan, he went to Afghanistan and teamed up with the Taliban leadership.

It's true that many of the people under the Taliban probably knew little of UBL or al-Queda, but the leadership was connected, and supportive of each other. There were some Taliban who opposed UBL, but Mullah Umar supposedly was his allie. Some say it was the other way around, even: that UBL provided the funds, training and weapons, and Mullah Umar obeyed him.

But the gist of your post is perfectly accurate. Our beef was with Al-Queda and UBL, but we've slaughtered so indiscriminately that people who didn't even like UBL are now joining forces against us. We've made enemies of people who never did us anything, and who would have been our allies if we had not invaded.

Invading Afghanistan was wrong, too. We don't say that enough.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

66. That's not correct. Read the enclosed link.....

Who Are the Taliban?
<http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html>

QUOTE:

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.

[Igel]

83. So what you're saying is that

"one of the mujahideen ... groups" is the same as "roups of taliban ("religious students") ... loosely organized on a regional basis" is the same as "an alliance of mujahideen" in 1992 and the same as the "united entity" that was formed in 1994. I'm not buying it.

Somehow when I have in mind the 2001 Taliban I don't have in mind the same group as the motley assortment in the early 1980s, or the group from the early 1990s.

One glorious kind of fallacy is keeping a word and altering what it refers to.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. You don't have to buy anything. The truth is difficult for....

...some people like yourself to absorb.

The Taliban did not suddenly appear out of thin air as you apparently want to believe.

[jobycom]

95. It's correct. Here's some more on it

"After the fall of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing mujahideen warlords. The Taliban eventually emerged as a force able to bring order to the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (although the Taliban fought aggressively against its enemies, its relative hegemony reduced the number of factions); and it brought social benefits by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society. The Taliban enjoyed considerable support from Pashtun Afghans and from Pakistan. The United States hoped that the Taliban might push the warlords to resolve their differences and chose a "hands-off" policy. Although the radical ideology of the Taliban would later alienate many, several observers initially considered its emergence as a positive development."

My note: The taliban (a common noun) were a movement in the mujahadin resistance, but they weren't an organized force (the Taliban) until the 90s. Your citation above bears that out.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Taliban

As for the al-Queda connection:

"Taking advantage of an invitation from some Afghan warlords, al-Qaeda returned to Afghanistan. There, bin Laden quickly established ties with the fledgling Taliban group, led by Mohammed Omar, and by providing funds and weapons at a crucial time helped the group rise to power. Thereafter al-Qaeda enjoyed the Taliban's protection and a measure of legitimacy as part of their Ministry of Defense."

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Al_Queda

Your link isn't wrong, it's just a summary, and skips over some things. It doesn't contradict my earlier post--or I should say, I'm not sure where it does. I could be missing something. I'm known for that. :-)

[Igel]

62. Wait until the Uighurs get support. n/t

[wicket]

2. Prayers for all

:cry:

[Kraklen]

3. And for what?

Nothing.

[Oversea Visitor]

23. For lots more enemies

For OBL you attack them. Tell me did you get OBL? They told you they dont control or have OBL. BOOM BANG BASH. Ooops no OBL.

[Kraklen]

30. Exactly.

I knew the whole thing would be one collassal fuck up from the start. There's still a number of otherwise liberal people who were too jingoistic and full of hatred when it started to realize it was a mistake, and are now too full of shit to admit it was a mistake.

[JohnyCanuck]

34. Now don't say that,

There's a very nice and potentially very profitable pipeline being built.

From The 1998 Congressional Record.
Emphasis added by the web master.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

Next we would like to hear from Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation. You may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE
PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION

Mr. Maresca. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you again. I am John Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation. Unocal, as you know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.

I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are land locked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure.

Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities of foreign oil. It's unlikely to be a significant market for new energy in the next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

<snip>

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war.From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have worked very closely with the University of Nebraska at Omaha in developing a training program for Afghanistan which will be open to both men and women, and which will operate in both parts of the country, the north and south.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link gas resources with the nearest viable markets. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. But these projects also face geopolitical challenges. Unocal and the Turkish company Koc Holding are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to Turkey. The proposed Eurasia natural gas pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Of course the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the U.N.-led peace process in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.

<snip>

Note since the above quote is excerpted from the 1998 Congressional Record, there should be no need to follow the 4 paragraph quote rule.

BBC Dec 27, 2002

An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan's unstable political situation.

This follows a summit meeting bringing together the presidents of the three countries last May when the project received formal go-ahead.

The pipeline would represent the first major foreign investment in Afghanistan in many years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

Above information gleaned from "It's all about oil!" posted at: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html .

[donkeyotay]

45. And the Chinese are going to buy out our ill-gotten gains.

The neoCons always said the ultimate enemy was China. Oops. Guess they are now going to proceed to mop the floor with us, now that neoCon brilliance has made us all so safe.

[Oversea Visitor]

89. They going to buy themselves a lot of grief

on the pipeline in Afghan if they do .

[bluestateguy]

4. Well I will say this

Fighting the Taliban--the poeple who actually were involved in attacking the US-- in Afghanistan is a far more noble cause than what we are doing in Iraq. The Afghan war is not the smashing success we were led to believe that it was, and I know that we would have things under control in that country if we weren't wasting precious resouces in Iraq.

[Kraklen]

7. The Taliban weren't involved in attacking the U.S.

There's nothing noble about the war in Afghanistan.

[bluestateguy]

11. Oh here we go

I should have kept my mouth shut...

:eyes:

[Kraklen]

12. Maybe you should have.

Do you still think Saddam had something to do with it too?

[bluestateguy]

15. I'm not even going to dignify an insulting question like that

I have almost 12,000 posts at this board and I have opposed the Iraq War root and branch before the war ever started.

I'm going to work now, and I have nothing more to say on this thread.

[ninkasi]

37. Another victim of Smirkdom

Hey, bluestateguy, I kind of think I know what you were saying...that we should have kept going after Osama in Afghanistan, instead of destroying a country that had not attacked us. We are all progressives on this site, or I hope the vast majority of us are.

Regardless of whether our troops were killed by the Taliban, al Quaida, they were senseless deaths. We should never have let Osama get away. Osama, and the majority of the hijackers...assuming the administration version is even semi correct, which I don't...if we were going to invade any country except Afghanistan, it would have made a bit more sense to let that country be Saudi Arabia.

This whole thing has been an unmitigated tragedy for the two countries destroyed by war, for our men and women, and to our country as a whole. Nerves are frayed, tempers flare up...but let's use our anger and outrage against our real domestic enemy, the neocons and their pathetic excuse for a leader.

[Igel]

64. Don't worry. Failing the ideological solidarity

test is a common enough occurrence.

If things can reasonably be interpreted two or more ways, there can, nonetheless, be only One Truth Path.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. No Afghans or Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers...that also means....

...that no Taliban were present.

Additionally, the Taliban were not involved with the planning and execution of the attacks on 911. Yes, Al Qaeda had training camps in Afghanistan, but the Taliban were not members of Osama's inner circle.

Then again, based on all of the lies we've been told by the NeoCon Overlords, how can we be sure that Osama and Al Qaeda were involved in the attacks on 911? And who stood to gain the most following the attacks on 911?

Too many questions, not enough answers.

[wtmusic]

94. That'll teach you

:D :popcorn:

[wicket]

53. no, but they did harbor bin laden

[Media_Lies_Daily]

73. And we're harboring the NeoCons. Does that mean some other country....

...has the right to destroy our country and kill whoever they want for the sole purpose of eliminating the NeoCons?

[wicket]

81. as long as they are hunting red herrings

[Media_Lies_Daily]

84. Like you?

[wicket]

87. Pointing out the Taliban harbored Bin Laden is not a red herring

Asking for a neo-con hunt is. C'mon we're both adults.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

92. So, harboring the NeoCon is not the same as harboring Al Qaeda?....

....And where in any of my posts have I ever ASKED for a "neo-con hunt"?

We, the US, have indiscriminately killed thousands of Afghans, probably tens of thousands, in a failed attempt to eliminate Osama and Al Qaeda.

Could we expect anything less if the international community decided to destroy the NeoCons?

Yes, we're both adults, but one of us appears to be fact-challenged, and that's not me.

[wicket]

96. I'm not fact challenged- I just have a different opinion than yours

You're right- you never used hunt- I used it to describe your comment over whether we should allow others to destroy our country and kill whoever they want.

I believe the Taliban harbored bin Laden and for that reason I supported the Afghanistan war. You did not- that is fine but there really is no need to jump down my throat over this.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

99. Whatever.

[wicket]

106. Ok.

:shrug:

[Singular73]

14. You are correct.

Hell, bomb them a second time, for all I care.

[Oversea Visitor]

17. Correction

The Taliban did not attack US. Or for that matter any countries.
The Al Qeada did that. Al Qeada is a CIA funded underground organisation that train and fund the Taliban freedom fighter to kick Russia out.
US attack Afghan to get OBL.
What happen?
Ooops we took over Afghan.
Ooops no OBL.
ooops we are killing Talibans.
ooops Taliban now are enemies
ooops Taliban are now terrorist

Go look at the list of 911 attackers. See any Taliban?

[Igel]

67. Nary a student of Islam among them.

Or did I do something stupid like translate "Taliban"?

The formation of the Taliban largely postdated Russia's departure. Nice try at revising history though.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

75. You're incorrect on the Taliban. See my Post #66.

[Minstrel Boy]

31. The Taliban actually warned the US about 9/11

and guess what? They were ignored.

Originally from The Independent in Sept 2002:

"Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0907-08.htm

[Oversea Visitor]

36. Look what was their reward for this

The Talibans consider US a friend cause US help them through Al Qeada to kick out the Russian. They even warn US and what does US do.
How damn sad.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

101. The Taliban were promised a "carpet of gold" for cooperating....

...and "carpet bombing" if they refused to cooperate.

[Oversea Visitor]

85. Guess what

2 months before 911 OBL was admited to America Hospital in Dubai.
He was visited by CIA personnel who was later recall to US cause he talk about the meeting.

www.mindfully.org

The articles is in there under reform/political social section
You have to go way back.
Lots of interesting stuff there too all are news report hey.

[tabasco]

35. I agree. The Taliban was and is complicit with Al Qaeda.

To deny it is equivalent to saying that someone harboring a serial killer is innocent.

[Oversea Visitor]

38. Show me proof

The only connection is that Al Qeada provide fund and help train them to fight the Russian. This fund and trainer was all CIA. Why should they attack US the country that help them to boot out Russia.
For heaven shake they are freedom fighter. They dont give a damn about what is going on in other part of the world except in Afghan.

[Igel]

68. Wrong universe again.

UBL ... minor player before the Russian's left. Al-Qa'ida postdates that.

I'd like to see somebody shake heaven. Have any plans in place?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

82. Osama was not quite the "minor player" you describe....

...additionally, Al Qaeda was founded in 1988 just across the border in Peshawar, Pakistan, one year before the Soviets left Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda
<http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terrorist-organizations/al-qaeda/>

QUOTE:

In 1988, the "city of flowers" played host to the birth of al Qaeda -- the most feared and most dangerous terrorist organization in history.

Many Americans were unfamiliar with al Qaeda until Sept. 11, 2001, when the terror conglomerate staged the September 11 attacks on America. Using the group's trademark style of tightly coordinated, high-profile violence, al Qaeda operatives hijacked four U.S. airliners and successfully crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers, with a third hitting the Pentagon and a fourth crashing in rural Pennsylvania after the passengers attempted to regain control of the plane.

Osama bin Laden is the primary founder of al Qaeda (which means "The Base" in Arabic), and he continues to be the organization's leader and driving force. After fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, with the backing of the United States, bin Laden had developed a taste for jihad, which was originally the concept of a holy war designed to liberate occupied Muslim lands.

....snip...

Like any enemy of the Soviets, bin Laden was a favored ally of the CIA, which for a time tried to foment a full-fledged jihad between Islamic extremists and the Soviets. bin Laden and many of the mujahideen had been trained and funded by the CIA over the court of the decade-long occupation.

[Oversea Visitor]

91. Gee Al qaeda formed in Pakistan

ok me learn something new today.The Bin Laden family are part of Caryle group Bush family business partner. OBL is a billionaires

[Oversea Visitor]

107. I don't live

Behind the Media Curtain.
I don't have to look myself in the mirror.
I don't have to break the mental barrier of "The US can do not wrong"
I don't have to suffer the pain of facing the unthinkable.

I do know and understand your feeling. And :hi: we just of opposing views and one day we hope that we can know the real truth. You may be right I don't dispute that.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. We're harboring the NeoCons. Are we all guilty of the acts perpetrated...

...by the NeoCons in our name?

[jobycom]

43. We shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan, either, but since we did

we should have committed full resources to creating a stable situation there.

Our fight was with one group, but we bombed the whole nation, claiming, as all dictators do, that we were liberating the people. But we bombed the people, and the guy we wanted got away.

That war--in the way we carried it out--was unjustified, too. We killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and made a ton of enemies in one of the most abused parts of the world. Then we left a token force to try to control things.

I agree that we should have focused on Afghanistan, once we went in. We needed--we need--to either commit our troops to a complete goal, or just get out of there. Instead, we made the classic Viet Nam mistake--we committed just enough troops to maintain a bad status quo, and not enough to achieve anything. Which means our troops are there in just enough force to be sitting ducks.

Republicans are children. They think you can solve any problem by blowing something up, like the Dukes of Hazzard or John Wayne. You can't.

[Oversea Visitor]

5. Birdies shot season now open.

Dont you think its time you get out of Afghan. Oh I forgot Liberty Freedom Democracy. Yeah. Ram it down force it down.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Sounds like there was (is?) some battle going on

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - A U.S. Chinook helicopter that crashed in eastern Afghanistan was likely shot down by hostile fire, and the fate of 17 Americans aboard - including special forces troops - was unclear, the U.S. military said Wednesday. The Taliban claimed it attacked the aircraft.

The troops were on a mission against al-Qaida fighters when the helicopter went down Tuesday in a mountainous region near Asadabad, in Kunar province. snip

The coalition and Afghan troops "quickly moved into position around the crash to block any enemy movement toward or away from the site" and coalition support aircraft were overhead, the statement said.

The helicopter was carrying forces into the area as part of Operation Red Wing against al-Qaida militants, the military said.

"Coalition troops on the ground in this area came in contact with enemy forces and requested additional forces to be inserted into this operation," U.S. military spokesman Col. James Yonts told a news conference. "That is why there was an aircraft, that is how it arrived on the battlefield."

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

8. ABC News- the Radio (KGO)-heard them say the Taliban executed survivors

Anybody else hear this?
They said the Talibian claims to have "shot" the survivors.
I heard it last night after Bernie Ward (on the ABC News bi-hourly news loop).

Anybody have links to that particular story?

[maddezmom]

29. this link says Taliban executed 7 Afghans

A Taliban spokesman said the troop-transporting Chinook flew in after rebels seized and executed seven Afghans "working as spies for the Americans with satellite phones and maps".

"Among the seven, one of them managed to get the message out to the Americans, who came with helicopters," Taliban spokesman Mullah Abdul Latif Hakimi told AFP by satellite phone from an undisclosed location.

He said Taliban rebels shot down the Chinook near a village called Shurak and that all on board were killed. There was no way of independently confirming his account and some of his previous claims have proved to be untrue.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050629/wl_asia_afp/afghanistanusmilitary_050629170908;_

[Igel]

69. They might well have.

It's one of the permitted methods of dealing with captives.

They've done it at least one other time in the past; the captives don't have to be on the field of battle, either ... just the decision concerning how to dispose of them must be delayed.

[maddezmom]

9. prayers to the families

:cry:

[Mz Pip]

10. The kid next door

went to Afghanistan a couple of months ago. He wasn't at all worried because he said it was really "mellow" there.
This doesn't sound very mellow to me.

Just because we don't hear much about Afghanistan anymore doesn't mean the war is over.

Another 17 grieving families. How sad.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[DuaneBidoux]

13. This was a just war. This was the war we should have finished!

THESE people attacked us. Where the FUCK is Osama Bin Laden???????


Edited to add: my prayers and sympathies to the families of the service men and women in this time of sorrow.

[Straight Shooter]

16. bush never finishes what he starts

His daddy's friends always finished it for him. But this mess is too big. I've been noticing an increase in conflicts over there, just little blips on the radar. We can't take care of it properly, because bush has invested so much in acquiring oil and dominance in Iraq.

I think of Afghanistan as the "forgotten" war, just like the ironic joke, "Osama bin Forgotten."

I am so sorry for those families, their friends and loved ones. We could have been out of Afghanistan a long time ago, if the war had been conducted by people who know what they're doing and if they had been allowed to do it. Tora Bora, specifically, comes to mind.

[Kraklen]

18. The Afghanis never attacked us.

Where ever Osama is, he's not in Afghanistan.

[shraby]

22. Recently there was an article that

said England is moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan to help out there.

[Oversea Visitor]

27. Yes 5000 Scotish troops

Forcing Australia and NZ to send too

[rodeodance]

46. no, bush told blair they would not come from Iraq--these would be 'fresth

troops. Bush does not want to take 4-500 troops OUT of irag now.

[Oversea Visitor]

93. They are fresh troops

[The Stranger]

19. Not exactly. Just War would require justification as well as action

taken limited to achieving solely that justification.

Afghanistan ceased to be a threat to the U.S. years ago.

[Oversea Visitor]

32. Afghan was never a threat to anyone

The Talibans was not a threat to anyone.
US help them to kick out Russia.
Why should they attack US
No Taliban on 911 list.
:crazy:

[DuaneBidoux]

39. Okay, the GOVERNMENT (which was then the Taliban) had training

camps and Osama was in those camps off and on. Even Clinton tried to strike one of those camps when he believed Osama Bin Laden was in the camp.

But here is the real deal: the war was legal. The UN supported it, it passed muster of International Law (unlike Iraq)--and we had allies, REAL allies.

I'm aware that this is a very progressive site, with probably many pacifists. Although I am not a pacifist I am a progressive, but I do believe there are bad people who must be fought (and I'll grant you that if I were on the other side of the Atlantic right now I would be placing Bush in that category!).

[Oversea Visitor]

44. Wrong

Go look at www.mindfully.org
Look under reform
Look for International Criminal Tribunal on Afghanistan Mar 10 2004.
READ READ ALL THE FACTS THERE.

[DuaneBidoux]

48. Looking...don't find.

Is it the in that long list below?

[Oversea Visitor]

54. Yes

[Stevepol]

78. Here's the link I believe.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribunal10mar04.htm

[Oversea Visitor]

88. Yup

I can never post it right that why l just read and not post link hey :(

[DuaneBidoux]

50. Can you just send the actual link...I will read it if you do

Having trouble finding.

[Oversea Visitor]

55. I suck at posting link

Not an IT person :(

[MrPrax]

59. "I am a progressive"?

Sorry--hate to break it to yeah, but your not. No Progressive I ever met supported an imperialist oil cartel carpet-bombing that far far outmatched the damage done by what essentially was a criminal act.

Oh, sparky...International Law is out on that one actually and--OH it was done under the aegis of NATO...?

You know NATO that 50 year old defense alliance in Europe erected solely to keep the Warsaw Pact at bay and protect us from Commies...what they are doing in AF is a good question, though, since it does technically breach the NATO charter...

But HEY! Since the Bush cabal has been so terribly wrong on Iraq, they must BE right on AF, huh?

You should question everything and knock off the 'pacifist' slurs

[DuaneBidoux]

65. Was FDR a progressive? Truman?

One carpet bombed Dresden. The other dropped two nukes killing 400,000 civilians.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

100. We're not talking about either of those guys, are we? And we're not....

...talking about WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, or Desert Storm.

Le't stick to a discussion of current events, okay?

[DuaneBidoux]

102. That's a good discussion. A valid one.

And it's also the response one would use if they still wanted to slander me without answering the question.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

98. No war is just when it is started by an illegal government with an....

...agenda that is completely out of step with the people they "govern".

The "war" was sold to the UN as an assault on the Al Qaeda training camps, and other Al Qaeda facilities, with minimal damage to Afghan facilities and minimal Afghan casualties, if any. For some reason, the Taliban were included as targets in the plan...but you would have to understand their refusal to knuckle under to the big US oil/gas companies to understand why they had become a target. Just a few years previously, the Taliban were honored guests at the UNOCAL facilities in Houston, TX.

Surprise! The NeoCons lied...they ordered the US military to attack virtually anything the stood above ground level, to include the Afghan people.

The goal was to completely exterminate Al Qaeda, and kill or capture Bin Laden. To date, neither objective has been reached, and we continue to take casualties from a people that now hate us as much as they hated the Soviets.

The NeoCons used what they had gained from the attacks on 911 to launch their campaign against the Middle Eastern region. First Afghanistan, in the completely mistaken belief that any organization with subgroups located in 65 different countries could be destroyed by attacking only ONE of those sites, and then Iraq, in the mistaken belief that they could quickly subdue the Iraqis and get them to do our bidding.

I'm a former serviceman myself, but even I can see the progression of lies used by the NeoCons to accomplish their own agenda. Additionally, it's not going to surprise me in the least if information comes to light in the future that implicates the NeoCons in the attacks of 911.

[Oversea Visitor]

108. You

do have a very open mind. The ability to question is what make the human race great.

:grouphug:

[DuaneBidoux]

40. Taliban had training camps in Afghanistan. Osama was in those camps off

and on, and in fact the video of him celebrating the fall of the twin towers, according to experts who have examined the surrounding mountain formations, was likely Afghanistan. Don't forget, even Clinton tried to strike inside Afghanistan against a camp he believed was harboring Bin Laden because it is well accepted that he was behind the attack of the U.S.S. Cole.

[The Stranger]

52. Since he is no longer in Afghanistan, it is no longer justified to destroy

Afghanistan or people who happen to be there now.

[DuaneBidoux]

56. Do you know that he is not there? (But I do agree there is no...

justification for destroying Afghanistan or people who happen to be there now).

[Oversea Visitor]

58. Under reform- politc and social

click on 2004 at top
then scroll to bottom use date to help 10 march 2004

The site is big they documents alots of articles here
Basically I use it for research and leads to more site from articles

[The Stranger]

60. Isn't the Bush Administration on record last week saying they know where

he is? They admitted that his capture is not their goal, but rather, apparently, killing as many people as possible that are unrelated to him.

[DuaneBidoux]

63. You sound delusional when you say

"Bush admitted to wanting to kill as many people unrelated to him as possible..." Get that quote and you've got something you can impeach with!

I will admit gross negligence on the part of Shrub, but statements like the one you made makes me want to go over to conspiracy alley.

Edited to add: admitting gross ignorance, dishonesty, criminality...but ADMITTING he wants to kill as many people unrelated to Bin Laden as possible? That's truly fringe stuff.

[The Stranger]

71. Nonsense.

Why else would anyone be shooting and killing people in a place as desolate and remote as Afghanistan?

Drawing in and killing as many people as possible in Iraq is the Flypaper Strategy.

[DuaneBidoux]

72. You got the quote? I guarantee we can impeach with that quote!

[The Stranger]

79. Not sure what quote you seek, but with the current media establishment

and the current extreme-Right Wing Congress,you wouldn't be able to impeach this President if he signed a written confession.

Forget it.

[DuaneBidoux]

97. With a quote, on tape, where he says..

"My goal is to kill as many people unrelated to Osama Bin Laden as possible" even this Congress would impeach. Don't forget, Nixon resigned (because he would have been impeached AND found guilty) with a Republican congress. There is a line. I admit it is much farther out now than it was. But there is still a line over which a President can't manage to go.

[Oversea Visitor]

77. All

on the same side hey. One need to understand that something are hard to accept. Information is everything. Not all this flaming. :)

[Democrat 4 Ever]

21. Doesn't anyone want to ask why it took over 24 hours for the

Pentagon confirmed the deaths of this soldiers? It may be that reports were sketchy but I'm willing to bet that it had more to do with Chimpy's speech last night.

Wouldn't be prudent to talk about staying the course in front of a bunch of military that just lost 17 more or their comrades just that day. Can't really "speechify" how great the war is going are when you have the troops dying in such uncomfortable numbers. One death is one too many, but how dare those soldiers mock Commander Cuckoo Bananas by trying to spoil his prime time attempt at "blowing smoke up the ass of the neocons" hour!

I wouldn't put anything past this bunch of a$$wipes.

[sabra]

25. they've done it before, and they'll do it again...

[Kraklen]

26. Hard to say.

I'm guessing it went down in a remote area in hostile territory. They probably had to get a number of units together, go out and secure the area, then look for survivors.

That said I wouldn't be surprised of the Pentagon played games with troop deaths for Bush's PR.

[saigon68]

103. The Bush Criminals have total control of the Propaganda

To keep the sheep in Line and grazing on the grass of prosperity.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

90. Excuse me, but to whom are you referring when you say.....

..."THESE people attacked us."??

You do remember that not a single Afghan was among the 19 hijackers, don't you? No Afghans...no Taliban, no non-Taliban.

Do you also recall that Al Qaeda consisted of non-Afghan Arabs?

[fudge stripe cookays]

24. We have a friend in the National Guard over there.

Be safe, Howard.

FSC

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

28. National Guard should NEVER be used to fight wars-it may even be illegal

Reserves overseas--ok--but National Guard? does anyone even question this misuse?


great sig line by the way!

[fudge stripe cookays]

33. Tell me about it!

Thanks. This button rules.

FSC

[DuaneBidoux]

41. Where can I purchase one?

or even better, a t-shirt.

[fudge stripe cookays]

51. "Why, right here,"

she replied.

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=y5089

FSC

[msanthrope]

47. Note that they held off announcing this until Shrub's speech was over..nt.

[DeaconBlues]

49. if this is true

...this will be the bloodiest year for troops in Afghanistan yet, and the year is barely half way over. We neglected Operation Enduring Freedom so we could finish the Bush family grudge match against Saddam, and because of this we are losing control in Afghanistan.

http://icasualties.org/oef/

[saigon68]

57. the official, who asked not to be identified,

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS ???

[radar]

61. Like the bumber sticker about Iraq...

"Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam" - "Afghanistan is Russian for Vietnam"

Hmm the timeline of Afghanistan resistance to foreigners more closely resembles Vietnam too. The locals have about 20 odd years learning to fight a superior force before America "takes charge."

1941 Ho Chi Minh secretly returns to Vietnam after 30 years in exile and organizes a nationalist organization known as the Viet Minh. After Japanese troops occupy Vietnam during World War II, the U.S. military intelligence agency Office of Strategic Services (OSS) allies with Ho Chi Minh and his Viet Minh guerrillas to harass Japanese troops in the jungles and to help rescue downed American pilots.
The History Place United States in Vietnam 1945-1975
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan

*On another note...Political and news media pundits seem to demand more immediate answers & solutions when a Democrat is running the country at the time a large number of soldiers die. Republican in charge? "Oh, no problem - these things take time, don't rush! You know what's best for the military! You're a republican!"

Carter and Desert One crash
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan1999/0199desertone.asp

Clinton and Somalia - BlackHawk Down
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html

[Herkdrvr]

74. Historical lessons

The Soviets in Afghanistan...Desert One, Somalia...

All were pretty much disasters that had lessons to be learned. But the lesson you imply exists doesn't ring true. You essentially believe that we can't win conflicts that involve "hardened enemies" or whatever. Instead you can learn the following lessons from those events:

Soviet/Afghanistan debacle: Main reasons why the Soviets lost this one was two-fold: They intended to force a communist, Russian-style government (ie, atheist) on the people, and they weren't having that. Second, they lost on the battlefield because Russian doctrine was so inflexible that they could not adapt to the guerrilla-style conflict...their forces were organized and trained to fight conventional military units.

Desert One: This tragedy was born from the four services not having good interoperability...prior to the mission, the Marines trained with Marine aircraft on Marine facilities, the Navy helicopters trained with their people, and the Air Force C-130s trained with their people. When it came time to execute the plan, the three parties had never trained together, and no one knew the entire plan completely. So it fell apart rather disasterously.

Somalia: Proof that war by committee isn't a good idea. Mogadishu was a tactical success, but a PR failure. We lost people because the politicians meddled and would not allow the ground commander to have gunship support and armor. In other words, the plan from the get go was a compromise between what the politicians in the White House and the UN Peacekeeping force wanted, and what the military commanders wanted.

Military forces properly applied are effective against insurgents. It just takes time. If you read about Mao Tse Tung, who wrote a book on guerrilla warfare, he stated that TIME is the most important ally. It's not how many enemy you kill, or if you even win any "battles"....it's the element of time. Allow the enemy (especially democratic enemies) to bleed for a little bit, and over time the public will lose support for the war.

[radar]

80. Your Somalia summary - sounds familiar

History lessons work if the leaders learn - I don't see the current crew learning yet.

Forgot my links

...unforeseen by the politicos, but it was foreseen by the guys who had worked in and around the military. Some were looking down the road and thinkin tion Provisional Authority (CPA) would look like and who some of the key players would be. They took questions, and I asked two questions. First, what are you going to do with the military? Then what are you going to do with the police? There was no answer. I got a shoulder shrug: "We don't know."
...A few of us looked at each other and raised our eyebrows. After the meeting some of us huddled up in the hallway and said, "We don't have a plan." In the small circle that I run within, the Special. Forces, this way of doing business is known as a "guided discovery."
Fox News' Occupation Critic 12/03/2003
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=1104

...The main reason U.S. military officers have said they are unable to gain control of the west? Not enough troops. (As Maj. Mark Lister, a senior Marine air officer in Al Anbar province, put it, “Basically, we’ve got all the toys, but not enough boys.”) President Bush has insisted he has sent enough troops to Iraq. U.S. military officers in the western Al Anbar province say they’ve repeatedly asked for more troops, but commanders in Baghdad and the Pentagon have denied their requests.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28/why-dont-you-send-more-troops/

[Rainscents]

104. So, sad, sad and so sad. I feel for all their family.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

Crying for 17 troops lost.

[DoYouEverWonder]

105. Yet, Bush only managed to mention Afghanistan twice last night

They were hardly a footnote.

Of course, they had to delay any real news about this crash till after the speech. Seems they're doing that a lot lately. What a way for good fristians to honor our war dead.

[Moderator]

109. Kick

[toey]

110. NBC: All 16 bodies from chopper recovered

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8391112/

[DS1]

111. 16 Spec Op troops shot down

At least ~those~ guys were in the right country.

[deadparrot]

112. RIP.

Well, at least it's closure. Can't say it was any big shock, but you always hope that at least a couple of them made it. :(

[merwin]

113. Weren't there 17?

[shraby]

115. There was supposed to be 17...

plus 7 who were calling for help and the reason the chopper was sent out.

[stopbush]

114. "Bring 'em on!" n/t